Sompolgrunk, A; Banihashemi, S and Mohandes, S R (2023) Building information modelling (BIM) and the return on investment: A systematic analysis. Construction Innovation, 23(1), pp. 129-154. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse the key measurable returning factors, value drivers and strategic benefits associated with building information modelling (BIM) return on investment (ROI). The findings of this study provide researchers and practitioners with up-to-date information in formulating appropriate strategies to quantify the monetary value of BIM. The suggested research agenda provided would also advance what is presently a limited body of knowledge relating to the evaluation of BIM ROI. Design/methodology/approach: To fill the identified gap, this study develops a comprehensive systematic review of mainstream studies on factors affecting BIM ROI published from 2000 to 2020. A total of 23 academic records from different sources such as journals, conference proceedings, dissertation and PhD theses were identified and thoroughly reviewed. Findings: The reported BIM ROI ranged greatly from −83.3% to 39,900%. A total of 5 returning factors, namely, schedule reduction and compliance, productivity improvement, request for information reduction, rework reduction and change orders reduction were identified as the most commonly reported factors that influence BIM ROI. Four quantification techniques including general assumptions-based theoretical model, perceived BIM ROI based on survey, factors affecting BIM ROI with no reported ROI and quantified BIM ROI based on a case study were observed and pointed out in the review, together with their limitations. Finally, three major gaps were raised as the lack of consideration on the likelihood of BIM assisting in a construction project, intangible returning factors influencing BIM-based projects and industry standards in benchmarking BIM ROI. Practical implications: The outcomes of this study would assist practitioners by providing the current evaluation techniques that address the limitations with BIM investment and present issues relating to the economic evaluation of BIM in the construction industry. It is also expected that presenting a deeper and wider perspective of the research work performed until now will direct a more focussed approach on productivity improvement efforts in the construction industry. Originality/value: This study identifies and analyses the key measurable returning factors, value drivers and strategic benefits associated with BIM ROI on an industry scale rather than a particular organisation or a project scale.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; BIM; building information modelling; construction industry; engineering and construction companies; return on investment; roi |
| Index terms: | conference, survey, return on investment, productivity, methodology, quantification, construction company, dissertation, benchmarking, change order, case study, body of knowledge, practitioner, strategy, economic evaluation, construction project, rework, compliance, systematic literature review, construction industry, evaluation technique, building information modelling, journal, research agenda |
| Subjects: | management, organization, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, research management, information systems, research methods, contractual condition, operations management, health safety and environment, data collection methods, performance measurement, production management, measurement and scaling, financial analysis, research evaluation and metrics, research dissemination and communication, knowledge management, economic analysis, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Digital Applications, Quality Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Contract Administration, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here